Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3629–3635

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Global brand ownership: The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and

brand identification
Fabian Bartsch a,⁎, Adamantios Diamantopoulos a, Nicholas G. Paparoidamis b, Ruben Chumpitaz b,c
a
Department of International Marketing, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern Platz 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria
b
Marketing and International Negotiation Department, IESEG School of Management, CNRS-LEM (UMR 9221), 3 Rue de la Digue, Lille 59000, France
c
ESAN University, 1652 Alonso de Molina, Lima, Perú

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The branding literature repeatedly emphasizes the role brands play in shaping consumer identities. In this
Received 1 November 2015 context, the rise of global consumer groups gives global brands a prominent role as potential tools for consumer
Received in revised form 1 February 2016 identification. Specifically, consumer segments that idealize global communities and/or hold positive attitudes
Accepted 1 February 2016
toward various aspects of globalization are particularly prone to using global brands in order to strengthen
Available online 3 April 2016
their identification with the global world. Against this background, this paper empirically investigates the medi-
Keywords:
ating roles of (a) consumer attitudes toward globality and (b) identification with global brands on the relation-
Consumer behavior ship between consumer orientations toward globality and global brand ownership. Findings from a study with
Consumer dispositions 300 French consumers provide evidence of full mediation in line with the theoretically derived causal structure
Global brands linking consumer orientations to brand ownership through consumer attitudes and brand identification. The
Brand identification paper discusses implications of the findings for theory, practice and future research directions.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Surprisingly, however, studies addressing the impact of positive

Marketing literature repeatedly emphasizes the role brands play in
shaping consumer identities (e.g., Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, &
Sen, 2012, Whan Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci,
2010). Indeed, consumer behavior is to a big extent identity-driven in
that consumers choose brands that match their idealization of self-
concept (Reed, Forehand, Puntoni, & Warlop, 2012). In this context,
the rise of global consumer groups (Keillor, D'Amico, & Horton, 2001)
and the emergence of a global consumer culture (Alden, Steenkamp, &
Batra, 1999) gives global brands a prominent role as potential tools for
consumer identification (Özsomer & Altaras, 2008), the latter capturing
“consumers' perceived state of oneness with a brand” (Stokburger-
Sauer et al., 2012, p. 407). In particular, consumer segments that idealize
global communities and/or hold positive attitudes toward various
aspects of globalization are particularly prone to using global brands
to strengthen their identification with the global world (Strizhakova,
Coulter, & Price, 2011). Such consumer groups are characterized by
positive dispositions toward globality as reflected in having a global
identity (Zhang & Khare, 2009), displaying positive attitudes toward
globalization (Spears, Parker, & McDonald, 2004), or being susceptible
toward a global consumer culture (Zhou, Teng, & Poon, 2008).
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fabian.bartsch@univie.ac.at (F. Bartsch),
adamantios.diamantopoulos@univie.ac.at (A. Diamantopoulos), n.paparoidamis@ieseg.fr
(N.G. Paparoidamis), r.chumpitaz@ieseg.fr (R. Chumpitaz).
consumer dispositions toward globality on consumer identification
with global brands are scarce (Strizhakova, Coulter, & Price, 2008), de-
spite the obvious role global brands play as symbols of a global consum-
er culture (e.g., Alden et al., 1999, Cayla & Arnould, 2008, Holt, Quelch, &
Taylor, 2004). The same applies to studies investigating consumer dis-
positions toward globality as potential predictors of actual consumer
behavior (e.g., Cleveland, Laroche, & Hallab, 2013; Cleveland,
Rojas-Méndez, Laroche & Papadopoulos, 2016). Prior relevant research
has sparingly examined ownership of global brands, despites its mana-
gerial relevance. (Bartsch, Riefler, & Diamantopoulos, 2016). Moreover,
extant literature provides only limited insight into the joint predictive
ability of different dispositions toward globality as drivers of consumer
behavior. To date, only a few isolated research attempts exists that take
into consideration multiple dispositions simultaneously to predict out-
comes such as global brand attitude (Guo, 2013) or purchase intentions
for global brands (Riefler, 2012). Overall, the relationships between dif-
ferent dispositional characteristics remain an untapped research topic.
Against this background, the present study empirically examines the
mediating roles of (a) attitudes toward globality and (b) identification
with global brands on the relationship between consumer orientations
toward globality and global brand ownership. Our intended contribu-
tion is twofold. From a theoretical perspective, this study draws on
social identity theory and investigates a causal structure linking con-
sumers' positive dispositions toward globality to ownership of global
brands as identity-congruent symbols of a global consumer culture.
From a managerial perspective, this study offers empirically based

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.023
0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
3630 F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3629–3635
insights into the impact of such dispositions on consumers' actual
buying decisions for global brands, while highlighting the importance
of brand identification as a driver of brand ownership.
2. Positive dispositions toward globality
During the last 15 years, international marketing researchers
conceptualized consumer dispositions toward globality in an effort to
capture changes in consumer characteristics as a result of globalization
(Arnett, 2002). Consequently, marketing literature offers a range of
constructs capturing such dispositions, which are used in substantive
research efforts (see Table 1).
Consumer dispositions toward globality are conceptualized either as
orientations defined as “set of values, opinions, and competencies held
by certain individuals” (Cleveland, Laroche, Takahashi, & Erdoğan,
2014, p. 269) or as attitudes defined as “learned predisposition to
respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect
to a given object” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 10).
Orientations are rather general manifestations of the consumer self-
concept and do not relate to a concrete stimulus object (Hogg & Smith,
2007); they merely depict consumers' identifications and associations
with a hypothesized global world. More specifically, identification
with the global community (GCOM) (Westjohn, Arnold, Magnusson,
Zdravkovic, & Zhou, 2009) describes identification with humankind
in general rather than with a particular set of countries. Similarly,
global identity (GI) (Zhang & Khare, 2009) captures consumers' self-
identification with a global world or community by focusing on the sim-
ilarities of people around the world. Finally, global connectedness (GC)
(Strizhakova & Coulter, 2013) conceptualizes an individual's attachment
and belongingness to a global world. Although the three constructs are
conceptually overlapping in that they all conceptualize positive group
identities toward globality (Bartsch et al., 2016), the international market-
ing literature is lacking empirical evidence about potential differences in
their predictive ability regarding the formation of consumer attitudes.
Attitudes toward globality, on the other hand, by definition involve a
concrete stimulus object, which becomes the focus of an evaluative
judgment (Ajzen, 1991). They depict consumers' positive stances to-
ward either the economic consequences of globalization (e.g., freedom
of choice, availability of products) or several aspects of global brands
and resulting lifestyle choices. Thus, globalization attitude (GA) (Spears
et al., 2004) captures an individual's beliefs about the (un)favorable
economic consequences of globalization, while susceptibility to global
consumer culture (SGCC) (Zhou et al., 2008) conceptualizes consumers'
desire to acquire global brands as a function of their (a) superior quality,
(b) social prestige, and (c) conformity to consumption trends.
Understanding the distinction between consumer orientations and
attitudes leads to a clearer recognition of their distinct roles each plays
in influencing consumer behavior. For instance, consumers identifying
with the global community may behave under the premise that their
behavior strengthens group identification. By contrast, the behavior of
consumers holding a positive globalization attitude may be merely
grounded in their positive evaluations of the economic consequences
Table 1
Conceptualizations of consumer dispositions toward globality.
Category Constructs
Identification with the global community (GCOM)
Consumer
Global identity (GI)
orientations toward globality
Global connectedness (GC)
Consumer Globalization attitude (GA)
attitudes toward globality
Susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC) “Consumer's desire or tendency for the acquisition and use of global brands” (Zhou et al., 2008)
of globalization, rather than a result of their identity-confirming
mechanisms.
2.1. The mediating roles of consumer attitudes and brand identification
Fig. 1 proposes a serial mediation model that conceptualizes a causal
sequence between consumer orientations and consumer attitudes to-
ward globality and links these to global brand ownership through global
brand identification. The proposed model conceptually draws from so-
cial identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), which seeks to explain the
“aspects of an individual's self-image that derive from the social catego-
ries to which he perceives himself as belonging”(Tajfel & Turner, 1979,
p. 40). In developing our hypotheses, this study draws upon social iden-
tity theory with regards to the formation of consumer attitudes (Hogg &
Smith, 2007) and the process of identity confirmation under the pre-
mises of the identity-relevance principle (Reed et al., 2012).
Consumers' orientations toward globality (i.e., identification with the
global community, global identity, and global connectedness) draw from
social identity theory, which suggests that a consumer's reference
group is not domestically anchored but rather emerges in reference to
a global world (Strizhakova & Coulter, 2013; Westjohn et al., 2009;
Zhang & Khare, 2009). According to social identity theory, social catego-
rization and depersonalization are the processes through which con-
sumers categorize people not as individuals but as members of a
group and, subsequently, form expectations about their attitudes and
behavior. Thus, the individual identity takes a less prominent role,
while group identification becomes the dominant driver of behavior
based upon an in-group vs. out-group distinction. As part of this deper-
sonalization process, consumers adopt a stereotypical view of their
in-group identification and seek to strengthen this identification by em-
bracing group norms (Hogg & Smith, 2007). For instance, consumers
who strongly identify with a hypothetical group will imagine a stereo-
typical role model for that group and, as a consequence, their identifica-
tion seeks to confirm such (positive) stereotypical views of group
members. Consumer attitudes toward globality, as Table 1 illustrates,
represents positive evaluations of different aspects associated with a
given global society (e.g., the belief in positive consequences of econom-
ic globalization or belief in a global lifestyle). This study therefore argues
that consumers' orientations toward globality, as reflected in conceptu-
alizations of global group identities, are likely to positively impact the
formation of more specific consumer attitudes that are perceived as
being representative of an imagined global community.
H1. Consumers' orientations toward globality positively impact their
attitudes toward globality.
Drawing from attitude theory (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), attitudes to-
ward a specific object reflect positive or negative evaluations of the ob-
ject and influence subsequent behavior. Hence, positive consumer
attitudes toward globality (i.e., globalization attitude, susceptibility to glob-
al consumer culture) translated into positive evaluations of global brands
as representative manifestations of globality (Alden et al., 1999; Cayla &
Conceptual definition
“Captures the degree of psychological and emotional investment one has to the global world”
(Westjohn et al., 2009)
“Being global means identifying with people around the world” (Zhang & Khare, 2009)
“An individual's overall attachment and belonging to the global world” (Strizhakova & Coulter,
2013)
“Support or opposition to globalization based upon the individuals belief about the economic
consequence” (Spears et al., 2004)
 F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3629–3635
Fig. 1. The mediating role of consumer attitudes and brand identification.
Arnould, 2008; Holt et al., 2004). In this context, extant literature pro-
vides evidence on the link between consumer attitudes toward globality
and global brands' evaluation (e.g., Guo, 2013, Riefler, 2012, Zhou et al.,
2008). Furthermore, international marketing literature frequently
emphasizes the role that global brands play as identifying objects of
global consumer groups (Holt et al., 2004; Strizhakova et al., 2008). For
instance, Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price's (2012) assessment of global
youth cohorts concludes that indeed consumer segments that use global
brands as identifying symbols of a hypothetical global community
with which they identify exist. Thus, in line with the recent study of
Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012) showing that several aspects of positive
brand evaluation (e.g., consumer perceptions of a brand warmth, its so-
cial benefits, or prestige) positively influence consumer–brand identifica-
tion, this study postulates that if consumers hold positive attitudes
toward various aspects of globality they also deliberately processed
their attitude toward global brands (Reed et al., 2012). Accordingly,
they are more likely to positively evaluate global brands as being relevant
to their identity as part of their self-concept.
H2. Positive consumer attitudes toward globality positively impact
consumer identification with global brands.
Extant literature commonly refers to two key functions that brands
fulfill. First, brands are marketing tools that help a company differenti-
ate its product offering from the competition by creating a unique
value proposition (Keller, 2013). Second, brands create meaningful
intangible associations that help consumers in their expression of the
self-concept (Aaker, 1997; El-Amir & Burt, 2010). As such, brands are
symbolic artifacts to reaffirm the self-image (Elliott & Wattanasuwan,
1998) or signal group membership (Chernev, Hamilton, & Gal, 2011).
In this context, Escalas and Bettman (2005) show that brands that are
consistent with social identity (in-group) perceptions are evaluated
more positively compared to brands associated with an out-group.
Drawing from the identity-relevance principle, “When identity
information is deliberatively processed, its influence will be greatest
on stimuli that possess object relevance, symbolic relevance, goal
relevance, action relevance or evaluation relevance to the identity”
(Reed et al., 2012, p. 316). Thus, this study postulates that a positive iden-
tification with a stimulus object (in our case global brands) will positive-
ly influence consumers' intentions to own that object as a form of
identity reassurance. Consumer–brand identification is associated with
increased levels of brand advocacy and loyalty (Stokburger-Sauer et al.,
2012) as well as actual ownership of identity-congruent brands (Whan
Park et al., 2010). Given that global brands frequently serve as identifying
symbols of a desired group identity (Strizhakova et al., 2011, 2012), such
brands may be perceived as particularly relevant for identification pur-
poses. More specifically, global brands typically associate with positive
attributes such as quality, prestige, and status-enhancing features and
eventually serve as a “passport” to global citizenship (Holt et al., 2004;
Steenkamp, Batra, & Alden, 2003; Strizhakova et al., 2008). Therefore,
this study argues that if consumers identify positively with global brands
they are also more likely to own such brands as a form of identity
reassurance.
3631
H3. Consumer identification with global brands positively impact global
brand ownership.
Lastly, this research expects that the inclusion of consumer attitudes
and brand identification as mediators in our model will render any di-
rect effects of consumer orientations or attitudes on brand ownership
non-significant (Guo, 2013; Zhang & Khare, 2009); in other words,
this study expects full mediation, as shown in Fig. 1.
3. Empirical study
3.1. Methodology
To test the model in Fig. 1, we collected data from a representative
sample of 300 French consumers through an online research agency
(Mage = 47.31; SD = 15.82; 55.7% female). France is a country with a
high degree of globalization (Dreher, 2006), ranking 20th on the
“Konjunkturforschungsstelle” (KOF) Index of globalization (see http://
globalization.kof.ethz.ch/for the 2015 KOF index). As such, French
consumers are likely to hold diverse sets of orientations and consumer
attitudes toward globality (Merino & Vargas, 2013), making France a
particularly suitable setting for testing our research hypotheses.
The consumer dispositions listed in Table 1 were all measured with
established scales drawn from the literature (see Appendix A) and trans-
lated into French by a professional translator followed by back-translation
from two bilingual scholars. This study measured identification with the
global community using the five-item scale of Westjohn et al. (2009),
global identity using the shortened four-item scale of Tu, Khare, and
Zhang (2012), global connectedness using the seven-item scale of
Strizhakova and Coulter (2013), and globalization attitude using the
three-item adaptation of the original globalization attitude scale of
Riefler (2012) (Spears et al., 2004), while for susceptibility to global
consumer culture, the research drew upon the multidimensional 12-item
measurement scale of Zhou et al. (2008). Identification with global brands
(GBID) was measured by asking respondents whether they “strongly iden-
tify with brand X” on a scale from 0 to 100 (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012),
while “global brand ownership” (GBOS) was measured as the total number
of brands (from a list of 20 brands shown in Appendix B) the respondent
has purchased in the last six months.
Brands were selected based on their availability across multiple
markets (Steenkamp et al., 2003), their country of origin (Riefler,
2012), as well as their sales volume in France and covered a variety of
product categories (see Appendix B). This study deliberately limited
itself to household brands to ensure that respondents from all social
classes could afford the selected brands. To reduce potential home
country bias (Balabanis & Diamantopoulos, 2004), the questionnaire
included both global domestic as well as global foreign brands as stimuli
(e.g., Riefler, 2012, Winit, Gregory, Cleveland, & Verlegh, 2014). Prior to
the main study, the selected brands were pretested with 20 consumers
to ensure familiarity with them. Finally, to account for potential order
effects, the survey design randomized items and question blocks in
our questionnaire.
3632 F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3629–3635

Table 2
Construct correlations and psychometric properties.

α CR AVE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (a) (b) (c) (7) (8)

Orientations toward globality 1. Identification with the global community (GCOM) .84 .86 .60 1
2. Global identity (GI) .90 .90 .68 .69⁎⁎ 1
3. Global connectedness (GC) .98 .98 .85 .80⁎⁎ .79⁎⁎ 1
Attitudes toward globality 4. Globalization attitude (GA) .78 .79 .56 .49⁎⁎ .45⁎⁎ .50⁎⁎ 1
5. Susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC) .97[1] – – .50⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎ .61⁎⁎ 1
a. Conformity to consumption trends .96 .96 .84 .51⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ .55⁎⁎ .58⁎⁎ .93⁎⁎ 1
b. Quality perception .93 .94 .78 .44⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .57⁎⁎ .95⁎⁎ .82⁎⁎ 1
c. Social prestige .91 .91 .71 .44⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎ .92⁎⁎ .75⁎⁎ .83⁎⁎ 1
7. Global brand identification (GBID) _[2] _[2] _[2] .27⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ 1
8. Global brand ownership (GBOS) _[2] _[2] _[2] .17⁎⁎ .15⁎ .19⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎ 1

[1] Reliability of linear combination. [2] Not applicable due to single-item measurement.
⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
⁎⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

3.2. Results
The psychometric properties of our measurement scales are satisfac-
tory as indicated by high Cronbach's α (N.70), composite reliability
(N .75), and average variance extracted (AVE) (N .55) values (Table 2).
For the multidimensional construct susceptibility to global consumer
culture, we first calculated the internal consistency for each individual
dimension (see Table 2) followed by the calculation of the reliability
of the linear combination of the three dimensions (Nunnally, 1978). A
high reliability of the resulting linear combination (.97) provides
sufficient evidence to proceed with an aggregated (summated) score
in further analysis.
Consistent with prior research (Bartsch & Diamantopoulos, 2015),
especially among consumer orientations, inter-construct correlations
are quite high (N.65), indicating that the relevant constructs share
substantial amounts of variance (N40%). To avoid multicollinearity
problems, we test our hypothesized causal structure by specifying six
separate regression models using different combinations of the orienta-
tion and attitudinal variables (Table 3). This enhances the robustness of
our findings and also helps to empirically distinguish among conceptu-
ally similar operationalizations of consumer dispositions toward
globality and their relation to consumer attitudes. All tested models
control for the effects of sociodemographic characteristics (age, educa-
tion, gender, income, and occupation) as these impact dispositional
characteristics and could therefore potentially confound our results
(Bartsch et al., 2016). Hayes's (2013) SPSS process macro with 10,000
bootstrapping samples was used to test for mediation.
Table 3 shows a consistent significant impact (β = .413 to β = .530,
p b .001) of consumer orientations toward globality on the development
Table 3
Regression analysis: individual effects on consumer attitudes toward globality.
DV globalization DV susceptibility to global
IV
attitude (GA) consumer culture (SGCC)
of consumer attitudes toward globality in all six tested combinations.
This supports H1 and shows that orientations toward globality, as a
form of group identification, lead to the adoption of group-confirming
consumer attitudes toward globality.
In support of H2, the analysis shows consistent positive impact (β =
.224 to β = .410, p b .001) of consumers' attitudes toward globality on
global brand identification in six possible combinations (Table 4, left
panel). However, only susceptibility to a global consumer culture
(SGCC) seems to fully mediate the relationship of consumer orientation
on global brand identification, while globalization attitude (GA) only
partially mediates this relationship (as evident by the additional signif-
icant positive effects resulting from the orientational constructs).
Supporting H3H3, the analysis shows a consistent impact (β = .515 to
β = .530, p b .001) of global brand identification on global brand own-
ership (Table 4, right panel).
The previous discussed effects of both consumer orientations and
consumer attitudes are transferred through global brand identification
on global brand ownership. The bootstrapped intervals in Table 5 reveal
that all six indirect effects do not contain zero and are therefore statisti-
cally significant providing evidence for the proposed causal structure
beyond the individual results of H1–H3. More specifically, the results
demonstrate that including the attitudinal as well as brand identifica-
tion constructs into the serial mediation renders any potential direct
effects of orientations on brand ownership as insignificant. However,
as previously noted, for globalization attitude, the proposed serial medi-
ation does not capture the full relationship between consumer orienta-
tions and global brand ownership. These results may be due to the
specific stimulus object associated with globalization attitude. Whereas
susceptibility to global consumer culture is a brand-related construct
(see Appendix A) – and, as such, it fully and consistently mediates the
effects from consumer orientations to global brand ownership – global-
ization attitude is more “remote” (and not brand-related) since the con-
struct only reflects an attitudinal disposition toward the economic
consequences of globalization in general.

GCOM .49⁎⁎⁎ – – .50⁎⁎⁎ – – 4. Discussion and implications

GI – .46⁎⁎⁎ – – .41⁎⁎⁎ –
GC – – .50⁎⁎⁎ – – .53⁎⁎⁎
The purpose of this paper was to investigate the mediating effects of
Gender .03 .03 .00 −.03 −.03 −.06
Age −.04 −.07 .01 −.18⁎⁎⁎ −.20⁎⁎⁎ −.13⁎⁎ (a) consumer attitudes toward globality and (b) identification with
Occupation −.10⁎⁎ −.12⁎⁎ −.08 −.07 −.08 −.04 global brands on the relationship between consumer orientations to-
Education .057 .02 .05 .03 .01 .03 ward globality and global brand ownership. The study finds support
Income .14⁎⁎ .10⁎ .11⁎⁎ .03 .00 .01
for the hypothesized causal relationship using different combinations
R2 .27 .23 .27 .29 .20 .31
of orientations and attitudes toward globality. The stability of our
Identification with the global community (GCOM); global identity (GI); global connected- findings suggests that our model indeed captures the way in which
ness (GC); globalization attitude (GA); susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC).
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001. consumer orientations toward globality are ultimately translated into
⁎⁎ p b .05. ownership of global brands. Implications of the findings for theory and
⁎ p b .10. managerial practice appear below.
 F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3629–3635 3633

Table 4
Regression analysis: individual effects on global brand identification and global brand ownership.

DV global brand
IV DV global brand ownership (GBOS)
identification (GBID)

GCOM .15⁎⁎ 0.07 – – – – −.01 .03 – – – –

GI – – .06 .02 – – – – .01 .05 – –
GC – – – – .14⁎⁎ .04 – – – – .01 .05
GA .22⁎⁎⁎ – .27⁎⁎⁎ – .23⁎⁎⁎ – .09 – .08 – .08 –
SGCC – .38⁎⁎⁎ – .41⁎⁎⁎ – .39⁎⁎⁎ – .01 – .01 – −.00
GBID – – – – – – .52⁎⁎⁎ .53⁎⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎⁎ .53⁎⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎⁎ .53⁎⁎⁎
Gender 0.04 0.06 .04 .06 .03 .05 .10⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎
Age 0.02 0.08 .01 .08 .03 .08 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03
Occupation 0.03 0.03 .04 .04 .04 .04 −.05 −.06 −.05 −.06 −.05 −.06
Education −0.05 −0.05 .60 −.05 −.05 −.05 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07
Income 0.08 .10⁎ .07 .10⁎ .07 .10⁎ −.00 .01 −.01 .00 −.00 .00
R2 .12 .19 .11 .18 .12 .18 .32 .31 .32 .31 .32 .31

Identification with the global community (GCOM); global identity (GI); global connectedness (GC); globalization attitude (GA); susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC); global
brand identification (GBID); global brand ownership (GBOS).
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
⁎⁎ p b .05.
⁎ p b .10.

4.1. Theoretical implications decision to buy global brands is mediated by the relationship between
consumer attitudes and brand identification.
From a theoretical standpoint, our findings support our theoretical Second, our study provides insights into the causal order of positive
rationale based on social identity theory (Hogg & Smith, 2007) and dispositions toward globality. Conceptually, this study differentiates be-
demonstrate that consumers possess global brands partly because of tween consumer orientations and consumer attitudes toward globality
the identity-reinforcing function of the latter. In turn, such identification and introduces a causal order ranging from rather general/broad orien-
comes about as a result of positive consumer attitudes toward globality, tations toward globality to quite concrete/specific consumer attitudes
which are on the other hand driven by consumers' broader orientations toward different aspects of globalization (e.g., economic globalization,
toward a global world. Thus for globally oriented consumers, the belief in global brands). As such, this paper responds to recent calls for
further research on the interrelationship between different constructs
Table 5 seeking to capture positive consumer dispositions toward globality
Mediation analysis: indirect effects with 95% confidence intervals.[1],[2] (Bartsch et al., 2016). In this context, general orientational constructs
Lower Upper may best represent a general feeling of belonging to a global society,
Model Effect SE
bound bound whereas attitudinal dispositions best represent the development of
GCOM → SGCC → GBID → GBOS .07 .02 .04 .10 group-confirming consumer attitudes, which emerge from consumer
1 Total Effect of X on Y .10 .03 .050 .15 orientations. Thus, consumer orientations and consumer attitudes
Direct Effect of X on Y .02 .04 −.06 .09 offer different perspectives for categorizing consumer groups suscepti-
GCOM → GA → GBID → GBOS .04 .01 .02 .06 ble to globalization and should, therefore, not be used interchangeably
2 Total Effect of X on Y .12 .03 .07 .18
Direct Effect of X on Y −.01 .04 −.08 .07
in substantive research applications and managerial practice.
GI → SGCC → GBID → GBOS .07 .02 .04 .11 Third, our study provides evidence that globally inclined consumers
3 Total Effect of X on Y .08 .03 .03 .14 indeed identify with global brands as potential symbols of a global
Direct Effect of X on Y .04 .04 −.05 .12 consumer culture (Strizhakova et al., 2011). Importantly, in contrast to
GI → GA → GBID → GBOS .05 .02 .03 .09
previous studies that measure identification with global brands at a
4 Total Effect of X on Y .11 .03 .05 .18
Direct Effect of X on Y .01 .05 −.08 .10 generic level (e.g., Strizhakova et al., 2012), our study provides more
GC → SGCC → GBID → GBOS .45 .01 .03 .07 concrete evidence at a brand-specific level. Based on actual brands,
5 Total Effect of X on Y .05 .02 .02 .09 our findings enhance and support literature claims that globally inclined
Direct Effect of X on Y .02 .40 −.03 .07 consumers use brands as identifying symbols when making purchase
GC → GA → GBID → GBOS .02 .01 .01 .04
decisions (Reed et al., 2012; Strizhakova et al., 2008).
6 Total Effect of X on Y .07 .02 .04 .11
Direct Effect of X on Y .00 .02 −.04 .05 Finally, this study extends current knowledge on the predictive
Additional indirect effects[3] validity of consumer dispositions toward globality by showing that
GCOM → SGCC → GBOS .00 .02 −.03 .04 such dispositions indeed predict global brand ownership. However,
1
GCOM → GBID → GBOS .03 .02 −.01 .07
this happens only indirectly through brand identification (Stokburger-
GCOM → GA → GBOS .03 .03 .07 .07
2
GCOM → GBID → GBOS .05 .02 .01 .10 Sauer et al., 2012). Specifically, even though globally inclined con-
GI → SGCC → GBOS .00 .02 −.03 .04 sumers tend to strengthen in-group identification through expressing
3
GI → GBID → GBOS .01 .02 .04 .06 positive sentiments toward global brands (e.g., Guo, 2013, Riefler,
GI → GA → GBOS .03 .02 −.00 .07 2012, Zhang & Khare, 2009), actual ownership of global brands requires
4
GI → GBID → GBOS .03 .03 −.02 .08
direct identification with the (specific) brand. This inevitably questions
GC → SGCC → GBOS .00 .01 −.03 .03
5 the salience of globalness as an additional brand attribute (i.e., beyond
GC → GBID → GBOS .01 .01 −.02 .04
GC → GA → GBOS .02 .01 −.01 .04 attributes such as quality, value, or origin) in impacting purchase
6
GC → GBID → GBOS .03 .02 .00 .06 decisions (Dimofte, Johansson & Ronkainen, 2008). If indeed globally in-
[1] Significant relationship in bold refer to a 95% bootstrapped confidence interval. [2] In- clined consumers make identity-confirming purchase decisions based
direct effects are based on 10,000 bootstrapping samples and control for gender, age, oc- solely on the globalness of a brand, identification as additional mediator
cupation education, and income. [3] Additional indirect effects refer to additional on this relationship would not be necessary. Further researchers should
mediation model without brand identification or the consumer attitude.
Identification with the global community (GCOM); global identity (GI); global connected-
invest in better understanding the incremental contribution of brand
ness (GC); globalization attitude (GA); susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC); globalness as a salient attribute impacting consumers' evaluative
global brand identification (GBID); global brand ownership (GBOS). criteria when making brand choices (Özsomer & Altaras, 2008).
3634 F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3629–3635
4.2. Managerial implications
With regards to managerial implications, our study assists global
brand managers in two ways. First, our findings suggest that positive
dispositions toward globality are indeed managerially relevant
constructs because they are able to explain global brand ownership.
However, their influence on the latter operates only indirectly, that is,
through consumers' identification with the brand. Accordingly,
managers need to investigate the identity relevance of their brands
and highlight such relevance in their brand communications. Brands
may be positioned as symbols of a global consumer culture by using
English in brand communication efforts (Alden et al., 1999), drawing
upon global symbols that emphasize belongingness to a transnational
culture (e.g., “The United Colors of Benetton”) (Hannerz, 1990), or
employing brand logos which are not tied to a specific culture
(e.g., the logo of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Cooperation,
HSBC). Prior literature not only provides evidence on the favorability
of global consumer culture positioning (for practical guidance on the
application of GCCP as a positioning strategy, see Akaka & Alden,
2010,; Alden et al., 1999) as a marketing communication tool but also
shows that globally inclined consumers positively evaluate brands/
advertisements, which draw upon symbols of an idealized global cul-
ture (e.g., Gammoh, Koh, & Okoroafo, 2011, Okazaki, Mueller, & Taylor,
2010, Westjohn, Singh, & Magnusson, 2012). Brand strategists should
carefully leverage global communicational cues that act as catalysts
not only by strengthening their brands' global profile but also by
facilitating the consumer–brand identification process.
Second, from a segmentation perspective, our study highlights
several promising constructs that managers may use in market research
applications. Beyond the theoretical distinction of consumer orientations
and consumer attitudes, our study highlights the relevance of five con-
sumer dispositions (i.e., identification with the global community, global
identity, global connectedness, globalization attitude, and susceptibility
to global consumer culture) suitable for market segmentation purposes.
Using information about consumers' positive dispositions toward
globality, marketers can segment markets in a more efficient manner.
Consumer orientations essentially provide measures of consumer identi-
ties that help differentiate consumer behavior in brand-related decisions
(Bartsch et al., 2016). Constructs such as global identity or global connect-
edness are applied in segmentation studies and provide evidence, sug-
gesting that these consumer groups are sensitive to manipulations of
positioning strategies (Strizhakova & Coulter, 2013; Zhang & Khare,
2009). Consequently, marketers need to carefully investigate market
communication efforts regarding their effects on likely consumer groups.
For consumer attitudes, marketers may use the reviewed constructs to
study consumers' direct responses to several aspects of an evolving global
consumer culture. Globalization attitude segments consumers' into pro-
and anti-global groups, which may react rather differently to (non-)global
market offerings. As such, for pro-globals (Riefler, 2012), brand managers
should highlight brand cues, which link to the economic consequences of
globalization (e.g., emphasis on high quality or homogenous standards
across multiple markets), while for anti-globals, a glocalized strategy
(i.e., global products adapted to local market conditions) with an empha-
sis on the benefits to the local society may more likely lead to success
(Cleveland, Papadopoulos, & Laroche, 2011). Finally, susceptibility to
global consumer culture explicitly focuses on consumers' positive senti-
ments toward global brands and, thus, captures consumer groups,
which by definition are more susceptible to global brands. Consequently,
brand strategists may leverage these global brand cues in their communi-
cation efforts (e.g., De Meulenaer, Dens, & Del Pelsmacker, 2015).
5. Limitations and further research directions
The results of our study translate into several promising directions
for future research. First, and most obvious, an examination of the sta-
bility of the proposed model in Fig. 1 using different outcome
variables (e.g., willingness to pay or actual choice between global and
local brands) would further establish its generalizability.
Second, expanding the proposed model by including brand-specific
characteristics in addition to consumer-specific characteristics (i.e., the
dispositions in Table 1) should increase overall explanatory power
regarding global brand ownership. Such brand-specific variables could
include the perceived globalness of a brand (Steenkamp et al., 2003),
the brands local icon value (Özsomer, 2012), or its origin (Koschate-
Fischer, Diamantopoulos, & Oldenkotte, 2012).
Third, future research should identify important boundary conditions
on the proposed serial mediation structure in Fig. 1. Moderating variables
worthy of consideration include the relative price of the global brand (in
comparison to local alternatives) (Dimofte, Johansson, & Bagozzi, 2010),
the economic development of the brand origin (Strizhakova et al.,
2008), and the product ethnicity of the brand (Usunier & Cestre, 2007).
Finally, the current study focuses on a highly developed market
(Merino & Vargas, 2013) in which global branding activities take place
in well-integrated marketing campaigns for several decades (Holt,
2002). As such, consumers from developed markets may not be as sus-
ceptible to the global brand lure (Dimofte et al., 2008; Johansson &
Ronkainen, 2005), while consumers from emerging markets may hold
stronger connection to global brands as identifying symbols of a global
consumer culture (Strizhakova et al., 2008). Consequently, replicating
the proposed model in the context of an emerging market is certainly
a desirable direction for future research endeavors.
Appendix A. Measurement instruments used in study
Identification with the global community (Westjohn et al., 2009)
1. I feel like I′m living in a global village.
2. I feel what I do could touch someone all around the world.
3. I feel like I am “next door neighbors” with people living in other parts of the world.
4. I feel that I am related to everyone in the world as if they were my family.
5. I feel that people around the world are more similar than dissimilar.
Answer format: 7-point Likert scale 1 = “I strongly disagree”, 7 = “I strongly agree”
Global identity (Tu, Khare, & Zhang, 2012)
1. My heart mostly belongs to the whole world.
2. I believe people should be made more aware of how connected we are to the
rest of the world.
3. I identify that I am a global citizen.
4. I care about knowing global events.
Answer format: 7-point Likert scale 1 = “I strongly disagree”, 7 = “I strongly agree”
Global connectedness (Strizhakova & Coulter, 2013)
1. I have a strong attachment to the global world.
2. I feel connected to the global world.
3. I think of myself as a global citizen.
4. It is important to me to feel a part of the global world.
5. Thinking about my identity, I view myself as a global citizen.
6. Feeling like a citizen of the world is important to me.
7. I would describe myself as a global citizen.
Answer format: 7-point Likert scale 1 = “I strongly disagree”, 7 = “I strongly agree”
Globalization attitude (Riefler, 2012)
In my opinion, increased economic globalization…
1. Encourages a maximum of personal freedom and choice
2. Leads to quality and technical advances
3. Provides consumer the goods and services they want
Answer format: 7-point Likert scale 1 = “I strongly disagree”, 7 = “I strongly agree”
Susceptibility to global consumer culture (Zhou et al., 2008)
Global brands….
1. It makes one feel good in his/her social group.
2. It makes one have the sense of global belonging.
Conformity to consumption trend
3. It makes one have a good impression of others.
4. It makes one feel close to contemporary lifestyle.
1. It has very high quality image.
2. It has a very high level of reliability.
Quality perception
3. It is associated with the latest technology.
4. It is associated with long-lasting quality.
 F. Bartsch et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3629–3635 3635

Appendix
(continued)
A (continued) Gammoh, B. S., Koh, A. C., & Okoroafo, S. C. (2011). Consumer culture brand positioning strat-
egies: An experimental investigation. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20(1),
Susceptibility to global consumer culture (Zhou et al., 2008) 48–57.
1. It signifies one's trend image. Guo, X. (2013). Living in a global world: Influence of consumer global orientation on
2. It represents the latest lifestyles. attitudes toward global brands from developed versus emerging countries. Journal
Social prestige of International Marketing, 21(1), 1–22.
3. It symbolizes one's social image.
4. It is associated with the symbol of prestige. Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory, Culture and Society,
Answer format: 7-point Likert scale 1 = “I strongly disagree”, 7 = “I strongly agree” 7(2), 237–251.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Attitudes in social context: A social identity perspective.
Appendix B. List of brands used in study European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 89–131.
Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture
and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70–90.
Holt, D. B., Quelch, J. A., & Taylor, E. L. (2004). How global brands compete. Harvard
Global domestic brands Global foreign brands Business Review, 82(9), 68–75.
Johansson, J. K., & Ronkainen, I. A. (2005). The esteem of global brands. Journal of Brand
Brand Product category Brand Product category
Management, 12(5), 339–354.
Président Cheese Kellogg's Cereals
Dimofte, C. V., Johansson, J. K., & Ronkainen, I. A. (2008). Cognitive and affective
Bonduelle Canned food Nescafé Instant coffee
reactions of U.S. consumers to global brands. Journal of International Marketing,
Danone Yoghurt Barilla Pasta 16(4), 113–135.
Chevignon Clothes H&M Clothes Keillor, B. D., D'Amico, M., & Horton, V. (2001). Global consumer tendencies. Psychology
Garnier Cosmetics Nivea Cosmetics and Marketing, 18(1), 1–19.
BIC Office supplies Duracell Batteries Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand
Orangina Soft drink Sprite Soft drinks equity (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Perrier Mineral water Red Bull Energy drinks Koschate-Fischer, N., Diamantopoulos, A., & Oldenkotte, K. (2012). Are consumers really
1664 Beer Heineken Beer willing to pay more for a favorable country image? A study of country-of-origin
CIF Cleaning products Ariel Cleaning products effects on willingness to pay. Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 19–41.
Merino, M., & Vargas, D. (2013). How consumers perceive globalization: A multilevel
approach. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 431–438.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
References Okazaki, S., Mueller, B., & Taylor, C. R. (2010). Global consumer culture positioning:
Testing perceptions of soft-sell and hard-sell advertising appeals between U.S.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), and Japanese consumers. Journal of International Marketing, 18(2), 20–34.
347–356. Özsomer, A. (2012). The interplay between global and local brands: A closer look at
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human perceived brand globalness and local iconness. Journal of International Marketing,
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. 20(2), 72–95.
Akaka, M. A., & Alden, D. L. (2010). Global brand positioning and perceptions: Internation- Özsomer, A., & Altaras, S. (2008). Global brand purchase likelihood: A critical synthesis and
al advertising and global consumer culture. International Journal of Advertising, 29(1), an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 1–28.
37–56. Reed, A., Forehand, M. R., Puntoni, S., & Warlop, L. (2012). Identity-based consumer
Alden, D. L., Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., & Batra, R. (1999). Brand positioning through behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 310–321.
advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The role of global consumer culture. Riefler, P. (2012). Why consumers do (not) like global brands: The role of globalization at-
Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 75–87. titude, GCO and global brand origin. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10), 29(1), 25–34.
774–783. Spears, M. C., Parker, D. F., & McDonald, M. (2004). Globalization attitudes and locus of
Balabanis, G., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2004). Domestic country bias, country-of-origin ef- control. Journal of Global Business, 15(29), 57–66.
fects, and consumer ethnocentrism: A multidimensional unfolding approach. Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., Batra, R., & Alden, D. L. (2003). How perceived brand globalness
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 80–95. creates brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 53–65.
Bartsch, F., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2015). Predicting global brand ownership: An empiri- Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer–
cal investigation of positive consumer dispositions towards globality. 44th EMAC 2015 brand identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4),
Conference. Leuven, Belgium. 406–418.
Bartsch, Fabian, Riefler, Petra, & Diamantopoulos, Adamantios (2016). A taxonomy and Strizhakova, Y., & Coulter, R. A. (2013). The “green” side of materialism in emerging BRIC
review of positive consumer dispositions toward foreign countries and globalization. and developed markets: The moderating role of global cultural identity. International
Journal of International Marketing, 24(1), 82–110. Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(1), 69–82.
Cayla, J., & Arnould, E. J. (2008). A cultural approach to branding in the global market- Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2008). Branded products as a passport to
place. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 86–112. global citizenship: Perspectives from developed and developing countries. Journal of
Chernev, A., Hamilton, R., & Gal, D. (2011). Competing for consumer identity: Limits to self- International Marketing, 16(4), 57–85.
expression and the perils of lifestyle branding. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 66–82. Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. (2011). Branding in a global marketplace: The
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Hallab, R. (2013). Globalization, culture, religion, and values: mediating effects of quality and self-identity brand signals. International Journal of
Comparing consumption patterns of Lebanese Muslims and Christians. Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(4), 342–351.
Business Research, 66(8), 958–967. Strizhakova, Y., Coulter, R. A., & Price, L. L. (2012). The young adult cohort in emerging
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., Takahashi, I., & Erdoğan, S. (2014). Cross-linguistic validation of markets: Assessing their glocal cultural identity in a global marketplace.
a unidimensional scale for cosmopolitanism. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(1), 43–54.
268–277. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social
Cleveland, M., Papadopoulos, N., & Laroche, M. (2011). Identity, demographics, and Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74.
consumer behaviors: International market segmentation across product categories. Tu, L., Khare, A., & Zhang, Y. (2012). A short 8-item scale for measuring consumers'
International Marketing Review, 28(3), 244–266. local–global identity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(1), 35–42.
Cleveland, M., Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2016). Identity, Usunier, J. -C., & Cestre, G. (2007). Product ethnicity: Revisiting the match between
culture, dispositions and behavior: A cross-national examination of globalization products and countries. Journal of International Marketing, 15(3), 32–72.
and culture change. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1090–1102. Westjohn, S. A., Arnold, M. J., Magnusson, P., Zdravkovic, S., & Zhou, J. X. (2009). Technol-
De Meulenaer, S., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2015). Which cues cause consumers to ogy readiness and usage: A global-identity perspective. Journal of the Academy of
perceive brands as more global? A conjoint analysis. International Marketing Review, Marketing Science, 37(3), 250–265.
32(6), 606–626. Westjohn, S. A., Singh, N., & Magnusson, P. (2012). Responsiveness to global and local
Dimofte, C. V., Johansson, J. K., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2010). Global brands in the United States: consumer culture positioning: A personality and collective identity perspective.
How consumer ethnicity mediates the global brand effect. Journal of International Journal of International Marketing, 20(1), 58–73.
Marketing, 18(3), 81–106. Whan Park, C., MacInnis, D., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A., & Iacobucci, D. (2010).
Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation
globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091–1110. of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1–17.
El-Amir, A., & Burt, S. (2010). A critical account of the process of branding: Towards a Winit, W., Gregory, G., Cleveland, M., & Verlegh, P. (2014). Global vs local brands: How
synthesis. The Marketing Review, 10(1), 69–86. home country bias and price differences impact brand evaluations. International
Elliott, R., & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction Marketing Review, 31(2), 102–128.
of identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 131–144. Zhang, Y., & Khare, A. (2009). The impact of accessible identities on the
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. evaluation of global versus local products. Journal of Consumer Research,
Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378–389. 36(3), 524–537.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to Zhou, L., Teng, L., & Poon, P. S. (2008). Susceptibility to global consumer culture: A three-
theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley. dimensional scale. Psychology and Marketing, 25(4), 336–351.